R v Griffiths - [2001] NSWCCA 32

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v Griffiths [2001] NSWCCA 32

FILE NUMBER(S):
60756/99

HEARING DATE(S): 14/02/01

JUDGMENT DATE: 14/02/2001

PARTIES:
Regina v David Griffiths

JUDGMENT OF: James J Whealy J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/21/1162

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Howie DCJ

COUNSEL:
CB Craigie - Appellant
MC Marien - Crown

SOLICITORS:
DJ Humphries - Appellant
SE O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal against sentence granted - appeal against sentence dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
No 60756/99
JAMES J
WHEALEY J
Wednesday 14 February 2001
REGINA v DAVID JOHN GRIFFITHS
JUDGMENT

JAMES J: David John Griffiths has applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on him in the District Court on 17 November 1999 by Judge Howie, after he had pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery. On the first count Judge Howie imposed a sentence of six and a half years, with a minimum term of four years ten months commencing on 30 May 1999 and an additional term of one year eight months. On the second count Judge Howie imposed a sentence of a fixed term of three years commencing on 30 May 1999 and hence to be served concurrently with part of the minimum term of the sentence imposed on the first count. In sentencing the applicant on the first count his Honour took into account an offence of taking and using a motor vehicle, an offence under s 154A of the Crimes Act.
In his remarks on sentence Judge Howie stated the facts of the offences in a way which has not been subjected to any criticism upon the hearing of this appeal. His Honour said:
"The facts of each of the offences are very similar. Each of the robberies was committed on the same premises, being a pharmacy in Penrith. The first robbery was committed on 18 April 1999, the second on 26 April - that is eight days later. In relation to the first robbery, the prisoner went to a car park and stole a motor vehicle which he used to convey himself to the pharmacy. The pharmacy, at the time, at around about midday, was staffed by a pharmacist and a young female assistant. The prisoner produced a knife to the assistant and told her that he wanted all the Normison tablets. Normison is a brand of sleeping tablet. The prisoner was directed to a shelf where the tablets were kept and he emptied that shelf into a plastic bag he was carrying. He then asked for a drug called Rohypnol. When the prisoner was told that none of that drug was kept in stock, he became agitated. He was then directed to another brand of drug of a similar nature and the prisoner emptied the shelf of that drug into the plastic bag. The prisoner then asked for cash and was handed or took approximately one thousand dollars. The prisoner then left the pharmacy and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Griffiths

Details

AGLC: R v Griffiths [2001] NSWCCA 32
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 32
Decision Date: 14 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Griffiths, the respondent was convicted of dangerous driving causing death, and the matter was brought before the court of appeal. The respondent, Griffiths, had been found guilty of driving dangerously and causing the death of another road user. The appeal arose from the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower court. The primary issues for the court to decide were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate.

The court examined whether the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in admitting evidence that was not strictly relevant to the charges but which the defence sought to use to challenge the credibility of a key witness. The respondent argued that the evidence was prejudicial and should not have been admitted. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate in the circumstances of the case.

In its reasoning, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence, as it was relevant to the credibility of the witness and did not unduly prejudice the respondent. The court held that the evidence played a crucial role in the respondent's conviction and that its admission was justified. Regarding the sentence, the court concluded that while the offence was serious, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court recognised the gravity of the offence and the impact on the deceased's family but found that the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed.

The court upheld the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence stood as determined by the trial judge.

Orders